ENROLLMENT PROJECTION PROCESS April 6, 2017 BACKGROUND In 2015, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

April 6, 2017

A REVIEW OF THE ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT PROJECTION PROCESS

 In 2015, Statistical Forecasting partnered with RLS Demographics to review projections process of APS and ACG (CFS- Phase 1, April 2015).  Methodological improvements were suggested in a later study (CFS- Phase 2, October 2016).  Goal of this study: Review current enrollment projections process in APS and offer recommendations on standardizing the process for future.

BACKGROUND

2

 Visited APS on February 14-15, 2017  APS staff  APS Board Members  PTA presidents of high schools and McKinley  Chair of Facilities Advisory Council  Staff members from ACG Planning, Housing, and Development  Reviewed APS Enrollment Projections Annual Report for 2016-17 and the Current and Projected Capacity Utilization Report

SITE VISIT

3

 Fall Projections (10-year)- Reviewed Excel worksheets used to construct projections and verified all formulas.  Spring Projections (1-year)- are a modification of Fall projections and are completed for the purpose of creating a budget for the following year.

FALL AND SPRING PROJECTIONS

4

 Fall 2016 projections were reviewed – APS is using methods standard in the field of school demography.

• Do not recommend reproducing 2016 projections
• Proceed with spring 2017 update of projections for 2017-18

 Recommendations on a number of improvements to apply to 2017 projections and beyond that are designed to:

• Build confidence in projections with reviews by both internal and

external teams

• Provide transparency in projections process and improve

communication about projections

• Implement improvements defined by the CFS

5

KEY FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation #1: Use the Spring projections for 2017 17-18 to plan for the school district’s budget and wait until Fall 2017 17 to conduct the next 10-year projection.

• September 30 counts available in 6 months

would give another year of historical enrollments to compute grade progression ratios with boundary changes (high schools as well at McKinley, Tuckahoe, and Glebe)

• Incorporate recommendations from Phase 2

CFS study (October 2016)

FALL AND SPRING PROJECTIONS

6

Recommendation #2: Eliminate the 7 7 Alternative Projection Scenarios in the APS Annual Report and instead construct Low/Medium/High Projections.

• Current Alternative Projection scenarios are

purely mathematical and do not consider demographic variables.

• L/M/H projections could modify variables

with greatest variability (B-K ratios, housing pipeline, fertility rates to compute long-term births, etc.).

APS ANNUAL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS REPORT

7

Recommendation #3: Include the Capacity Utilization Report within the APS Annual Report for easy cross-referencing. Recommendation #4 #4: Besides using percent utilized as the defining element of capacity, qualitative elements should be considered as well.

• School whose capacity is 110% on a large property

site may be more able to house relocatables than a school at 105% capacity on small site.

• Consider impact on parking, dropoffs, playground

usage and safety, etc.

APS CAPACITY UTILIZATION REPORT

8

Recommendation #5 #5: : Create an Appendix in the APS Annual Report which provides technical details of the school-level projections.

• Show historical and projected grade progression

ratios by school.

• List assumptions used by school (e.g., using

different number of years to project ratios).

• Number of children added into projections from new

housing (by grade and year) with number of new units.

• Student generation factors (“SGFs”) used to

compute children from new housing.

APS ANNUAL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS REPORT APPENDIX

9

Recommendation #6 #6: : Create a 4-person committee

from APS and ACG Planning to make decisions on the subjective aspects of the enrollment projection process. Create a team of public stakeholders (3-4 persons) ) to review the projections.

• APS Director of Facilities, APS Planning and

Evaluation, APS Facilities Staff, and ACG Planning

• Discuss subjective aspects of process (number of

years for grade progression ratios, housing unit timeline, moving planning units for redistricting, etc.).

• Public stakeholder committee has the opportunity

to vet the projections before finalizing.

PROJECTIONS REVIEWING COMMITTEES

10

Recommendation #7: Provide training to APS

Facilities staff on effectively communicating technical information and developing presentation skills.

Recommendation #8 #8: PowerPoint slides used in

presentations should include a footnote on each slide summarizing the slide to facilitate a greater understanding for those who are unable to attend the presentation.

 APS staff very knowledgeable about their content areas but have difficulty bringing the information down to a lower level for public consumption.

APS FACILITIES PRESENTATIONS

11

Recommendation #9 #9: : Continue to utilize planning units to assist in the redistricting process.

 Planning units based on census block geography and are used in redistricting process.  If eliminated, two potential problems would exist:

• 1. Loss of confidentiality as individual children

would be isolated during redistricting.

• 2. Arbitrariness of creating boundaries would be

very contentious.

PLANNING UNITS

12

Recommendation #10: : Continue to project enrollments at the aggregated level as is currently completed for the Annual Report, and not by any specific subgroup such as race. Aggregated projections at subgroup level will not equal overall projections (with no subgroups) due to using a different unit of analysis.

PROJECTIONS BY SUBGROUP

13

Recommendation #11 #11: : Continue to assume that 1/3 of the Arlington Te Tech students would come from each of the HS attendance areas until more historical data becomes available.

 Several years of historical data are needed to analyze patterns.  2016-17 showed a 33%-33%-33% transfer rate, albeit for a small sample.  For other transfers (e.g., McKinley to Glebe), grade progression ratios do capture transfers provided transfer direction (into or out of a school) remains the same.

TRANSFER STUDENTS

14

Recommendation #12: : Continue to perform enrollment projections for only a 10-year period. Reliability of projections would rely on projected births from ACG. Fertility rate can change as well as number of women of child-bearing age due to migration. Cannot forecast housing growth or housing conversions that far out. Too many variables that can change projections

• ver a 20-30 year period.

LONG-TERM ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS (20-30 YEARS)

15

Data sharing agreement between ACG and APS will be used to enhance projections. ACG will provide:

 Master Housing Unit database- count of each housing unit by type and affordability  Housing Unit Forecast- annual estimate of number of housing units.  Timeline of Homes Under Construction  Population Forecast  Estimation of Long-Term Births- Birth 5 and 10 years

• ut

 Comparison of ACG forecasts (ages 5-19) with APS projections (ages 5-18).

ARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING, HOUSING, AND DEVELOPMENT

16

 Historical September 30 counts by school (APS)  Live birth statistics- (Virginia Dept. of Health)  Projected long-term births (ACG)  Housing pipeline data (ACG)  Housing unit totals (ACG)  Student Generation Factors from 2015 (Phase 2 CFS Report)

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FALL PROJECTIONS

17

 Director of Facilities completes draft projections in early November.  APS Projections Reviewing Committee meets in mid-November to discuss subjective aspects of the projections.  Stakeholders Projections Reviewing Committee meets and provides feedback.  Publish Annual Report on or about December 1.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FALL PROJECTIONS

18

 January 31 counts by grade and school (APS)  Director of Facilities contacts principals to explain any enrollment anomalies from September to January.  Fall projections are modified on an “as needed” basis depending on change in enrollment over 5- month period.  APS Projections Reviewing Committee meets in early February to discuss modification of the projections based on enrollment anomalies.  Stakeholders Projections Reviewing Committee meets and provides feedback.  Publish Spring Projections on or about February 15.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SPRING PROJECTIONS

19

 Fall 2016 projections were reviewed – APS is using methods standard in the field of school demography.

• Do not recommend reproducing 2016 projections
• Proceed with spring 2017 update of projections for 2017-18

 Recommendations on a number of improvements to apply to 2017 projections and beyond that are designed to:

• Build confidence in projections with reviews by both internal and

external teams

• Provide transparency in projections process and improve

communication about projections

• Implement improvements defined by the CFS

20

KEY FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS